We are told that god made man in his own image, so, which of all the various colours and races of mankind was god? If, say, those in the Bible were the true imsge then he was what we would now call a member of the Semitic group (though "semitic" originaly applied to a language group rather than a racial one - including all the biblical languages plus Hebrew and Arabic etc).

Racially those in the "Semitic" group are Causasian, along with Europeans, Indians and others. So god was really a Caucasian then? So where did the Negroids and Mongoloids come from? Are they "not in god's image"? 6000 years is a short time for them to have split off and gone their own, very long, way and changed so much. They can't have evolved can they?

Hey, just thought, bet there are lots of white creationist fundies who will not entertain the idea that Causaians are from African stock, dropping a few off in the bible lands on their way north and east.

There is just ONE race of people on this planet, the human one. Why is this so difficult to understand stand?

This.

The line of thinking in the OP is used to justify some hardcore racism.

How is skin color so incredibly relevant to God's image. Men often look different than women. Short stocky people look different than tall lanky people. And so forth. And no one is sitting around wondering if tall people are Gods true race.

I remember being told humans were created in god's image so that we could understand him and obey his word -- but I was also told that god's ways were mysterious and his mind was not like our mind so we just had to obey without understanding. But we were still made in his image to be like him.

Logged

Sandy

"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?" from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Assume for a moment that the present biblical interpretations are based on wrong thinking. The book is middle eastern, which isn't written in the European state of mind. European mindsets are not that same as ancient middle easterners, which is eluded to in the OP. The Euros merely added the book to their own religion based in druidism, and definitely doesn't fit the writings of the book.

There is just ONE race of people on this planet, the human one. Why is this so difficult to understand stand?

This.

The line of thinking in the OP is used to justify some hardcore racism.

How is skin color so incredibly relevant to God's image. Men often look different than women. Short stocky people look different than tall lanky people. And so forth. And no one is sitting around wondering if tall people are Gods true race.

I've given this subject a bit more thought. This is what I and my contemporaries say, think and understand the image. People mostly look at the image of God from a physical point of view. But look at it for a moment from a Psychological view. If a person is a psychological fact then "God" also has to a psychological fact also. The Image then would be psychological rather then physical, as "God" isn't supposed to have a physical shape and is spiritual. There is a contingent of Jews who believe that the image is for their race only and that all other aren't. And, at the same time express the image in physical terms. Logic dictates then, that from the physical point of reference it would seem then (that is if the image is physical) all Jews would physically look alike. The Psycho types in my acquaintance hold that all persons (at least known as people) are all psychologically the same. What makes each seem different then others is that individuals place more emphasis on different factors. The more or less emphasis is what causes us our troubles with each other. IE- An individual may place more emphasis on leadership traits while another may place more on follower traits. This difference causes the problems between the two.

In my understanding then, One has to understand the traits that one is under at any given time to make self adjustment to maintain the peace between self and others. From the understood characteristics of person one can then choose which of them they wish to hold to. So then- If one is a psychological fact the same as others then the image of God would have to be what everyone is or has. When one understands the characteristics and can adjust accordingly then what use would there be for a God "superhuman'. You would know everything about yourself that any superhuman God would. That means ( if this be correct) there would have to be an invisible blob if Psychology as a free floater in space.

If the "Image" be psychological then it has to be a product of nature rather then a superhuman someone. Otherwise the super human someone has baby spirits available at any time to inhabit bodies as they develop to birth. But that can't be true as the general featurec of a child takes on traits of the parents, and for the most part the Berstroms look like the Bergsroms and the Fletchers look like. Fletchers.

It became apparent to us that one is formed in the brain and then, that makes "God" the forces that nature creates from. Once the likeness begins it is passed from parents to child and is a natural process. God then has to be nature itself. Or, there's billion of spirits sitting on benches waiting for bodies, which would be a ludicrous assertion by anyone.

Everyone's natural image is the same as---everyone's (so I say). In understanding the image that we all have ---we can understand the problems we encounter with each other- and know the traits in use at any specific time of incident. And is Nature is God, then the book is correct--we are all god and it's just a matter of which kind one wants to be. All in all, if the image is psychological we can understand it, if it's physical- we won't.